Gujarat High Court
Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd vs Gaurangbhai Baldevbhai Rana on 5 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13637/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13637 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15701 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
===============================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
===============================================================
ELECON ENGINEERING CO. LTD.
Versus
GAURANGBHAI BALDEVBHAI RANA
===============================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK DAVE WITH MR JEET Y RAJYAGURU(8039) for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 05/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. UT Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the learned counsels for the respective parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing today.
2. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking following reliefs:
Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:38:27 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13637/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026 undefined "(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside impugned award dated 29.06.2024 passed by the Labour Court, Anand in Reference (T) No.34 of 2021 qua awarding reinstatement with continuity of service, and further may be pleased to reject the Reference of the respondent in full;
(B) Pending the admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned award dated 29.06.2024 passed by the Labour Court, Anand in Reference (T) No.34 of 2021;
(C) Any other and further relief or reliefs to which this Hon'ble Court deemed fit, in the interest of justice; may kindly be granted;"
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the respondent was appointed as Junior Engineer by erstwhile Prayas Casting Ltd. on 05.06.2004 for a period of one year and was re- appointed on 17.03.2005 for another one year. Thereafter, he was again re-appointed for another 2 years w.e.f 01.04.2006. That, from 01.04.2007 the petitioner confirmed his services and designated him as Engineer in the grade of S5. That, Prayas Casting Ltd. was merged with present petitioner M/s Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd and accordingly, the services of the respondent was transferred to the present petitioner company without any service break. That, the respondent was promoted to the post of Senior Executive w.e.f. 01.10.2018. That, he was working as Senior Executive in the Heat Treatment Department of the petitioner company. That, on 17.10.2020, the respondent was relieved from services by paying three months' notice pay in lieu of serving three months' notice period. Consequently, the respondent approached Labour Court, Anand by way of filing Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:38:27 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13637/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026 undefined Reference (T) No.34 of 2021 whereby, the Labour Court vide award dated 29.06.2024 directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service without back wages.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award dated 29.06.2024 passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
5. Heard Mr. Dipak Dave, learned counsel with Mr. Jeet Rajyaguru, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. UT Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials available on record.
6. Learned counsel Mr. Dave has submitted that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and material on record and the provisions of the Act and therefore, is required to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the Labour court did not consider the fact that the onus to prove that the respondent is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the ID Act is on the respondent and the said onus was illegally shifted on the petitioner. He has submitted that the respondent failed to prove his case that he falls within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act and this vital aspect was completely missed by the Labour Court. The definition of worker stipulated in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is as under:
"Section 2(s):-
'workman' means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:38:27 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13637/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026 undefined whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged for retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-
(i) Who is subject to the Air force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii) Who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or
(iii) Who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
(iv) Who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.]"
He has submitted that the Labour Court did not consider the fact that Executives, Senior Engineers and Junior Engineers were working under the respondent in his department and the respondent was supervising the work of these employees who in turn supervise the work of workmen working in the said department. The Labour Court has completely missed this vital aspect while holding that the respondent is a workman as per section 2(s) of the Act. He has submitted that the Labour Court did not consider the fact that there is no evidence to prove that the respondent has completed 240 days in the year preceding to his termination and therefore, no reinstatement ought to have been allowed.
6.1 He has further contented that in view of the settled legal principles and in similar set of facts in the case of a junior Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:38:27 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13637/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026 undefined engineer of the petitioner-company, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had allowed the petition which came to be challenged by filing Letters Patent Appeal and the Division Bench of this Court confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge and thereafter, the order passed by the Division Bench was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition and the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court and, therefore, under such circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel Mr. Dave has urged that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is required to be quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed.
7. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent in support of his contention has referred and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2000 (9) SCC 534 in the case of Workmen of Hindustan V.O.Corporation Ltd Vs. Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd. and Others and urged that before passing the final order in the petition preferred by the employer being SCA No. 13637 of 2024, the appropriate order may be passed to pay the amount under section 17B of the Act.
8. In the case of Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd. and Others(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 as under:
Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:38:27 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13637/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026 undefined "2. The order under challenge has been passed by a Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta. Its operative portion states that the writ petition filed by the present appellants and their application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act should be disposed of together, expeditiously. We are of the view that an application under Section 17-B should be disposed of before the principal petition and it should be disposed of most expeditiously.
3. We, therefore, set aside the order under challenge to the extent that it requires the disposal of the writ petition and the Section 17-B application together and we direct that Section 17-
B application should be disposed of with great promptitude and before the disposal of the writ petition.
4. Section 17-B application shall be listed before a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court expeditiously, and the parties may seek a fixed date of hearing. It shall be open to the parties to raise all contentions in support of and against the application. It shall also be open to the first respondent to rely upon the order of BIFR that it states has been passed."
8.1 Mr. Mishra, learned counsel has opposed the present petition and submitted that there is no any infirmity or any illegality in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court and the present petition is required to be dismissed.
9. On the above referred facts, it appears that the petition had come up for hearing before the Coordinate Bench of this Court(Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M.K.Thakker) dated 24.09.2024 wherein the Court had issued a notice and granted interim relief on the condition that the petitioner shall comply with the provision of section 17B of the ID Act and on subject to Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:38:27 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13637/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026 undefined compliance, the interim relief was granted. After passing of this order, the respondent filed an affidavit for the purpose of compliance of section 17B and contended before this Court that after removal from the services the employee has tried to obtain work in different establishments but could not get any work and, therefore, he is not gainfully employed elsewhere and the order of section 17B has not been complied with till date by the petitioner.
10. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and considered the above referred decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I am in complete agreement with the submissions made by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel and thus, I am of the opinion that first the employer may pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards the lump sum against the impugned award of section 17B of the ID Act as the petitioner has not complied with the order till today i.e. for about 15 months. Considering the above facts, the compliance of the judicial order dated 24.09.2024 is required to be made first and, therefore, the said amount of Rs.2,00,000 shall be paid towards the compliance of section 17B of the Act as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred decision.
11. So far as the merits of the petition is concerned, it was contended by Mr. Dave, learned counsel that the respondent was working as a Senior Executive and, in similar set of facts, in the Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:38:27 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13637/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026 undefined case of a junior engineer of the petitioner company, the Coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with the subject matter i.e. Special Civil Application No. 4710 of 2023 and allied group of petitions preferred by the petitioner decided on 24.12.2024 wherein the Court has dealt with the issue that whether the concerned workman came within the definition of section 2(s) of the ID Act or not and after hearing both the sides, the Court allowed the petitions and the award passed by the Labour Court was quashed and set aside and the cross petitions filed by the concerned workmen were dismissed. It appears that the said decision was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court by preferring Letters Patent Appeal No. 760 of 2025 and allied group of LPAs, which came to be decided by the Division Bench on 26.06.2025. Upon referring various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S.Supehia and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.T.Vachhani) was pleased to confirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge rendered in the group of petition. Thereafter, the concerned workmen approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the decision of the Division Bench of this Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 62376 of 2025 which came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12.01.2026 and after hearing the respective parties, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to confirm the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 760 of 2025 and allied group of LPAs. It appears that the observation made by the learned Single Judge was confirmed upto the Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:38:27 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13637/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026 undefined Hon'ble Supreme Court.
12. In another set of facts, the workmen have challenged the impugned award passed by the learned Single Judge by way of preferring Letters Patent Appeal No. 1134 of 2025 in Special Civil Application No. 8078 of 2022 which came up for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court (Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.S.Pirzada) on 15.12.2025 and after referring and relying upon the earlier order passed by the another Division Bench of this Court in the LPA No. 760 of 2025, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the group of Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the concerned workmen. In fact, while dismissing the appeal, this Court also refused to extend the benefit under section 17B of the Act as observed in paragraph 12 of the order, as the order passed by the Coordinate Bench which was confirmed by two different Division Benches and further confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the present petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be partly allowed and cross petition preferred by the workman being Special Civil Application No. 15701 of 2024 deserves to be dismissed.
13. It is worthwhile to refer to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. A.S.Raghavendra reported in 2024 INSC 265; the case of Lenin Kumar Ray Vs. Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd. reported in 2024 AIR(SC) 5409; the case of Srinibas Goradia Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:38:27 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13637/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026 undefined Vs. Arvind Kumar Sahu rendered in 2025 INSC 1467.
14. So far as the compliance of section 17B of the Act is concerned, I am bound by the order passed by the Division Bench, however, considering the fact that since the order of issuance of notice passed by the learned Judge at the time the judicial order was passed to comply with the provision of section 17B of the Act and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred herein above, the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the lump sum is to be paid to the respondent in compliance of section 17B of the Act otherwise as it is observed by the Division Bench in paragraph 12 in LPA No. 1134 of 2025, this Court cannot pass the order to award Rs.2,00,000/- towards section 17B of the Act for the compliance of the judicial order.
15. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
16. In view of the order passed in Special Civil Application No. 13637 of 2024, the cross petition of the workman being Special Civil Application No. 15701 of 2024 stands dismissed.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) ANUSRI Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 21:38:27 IST 2026